2018 (8) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perused the records. 2. Denial of refund benefit in respect of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellant in this case, had filed the refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming refund of Service Tax amount of Rs. 4,56,475/- paid by the service provider. Such application was filed on the ground that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I Vs. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj.) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Relpol Plastic Products Ltd. - 2016 (42) STR 867 (Tri.-Mumbai), to state that once the appellant is eligible for ava .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... during the disputed period had also been deposited by such service provider in the Central Government account. Since such service provider has not served any food or beverages in a restaurant, eating joint or a mess and provided altogether a different taxable service to the appellant within its factory premises, the condition no. 19 prescribed in the notification dated 20.06.2012 have not been fu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X